Finally, we have both big candidates! Jospin declared himself today, totally by surprise (all predictions planned on later dates). YAY!
Now, hopefully things will become interesting in this bloody boring campaign.
Re:Can we call it a campaign ?
darobin on 2002-02-23T01:23:53
As I said in my previous entry on the subject, campaigns aren't where politics happen. Never, not in any country that I know. To a certain extent, this can be considered "logical". The goal of the campaign is to win the elections, and then the politics happen (or not
;-) I totally agree that this is not optimal, but in the past having genuine public debates has proven disastrous as any well-developed idea is broken by the simplest demagogy. One thing that I find a pity is that the programs are available, but that they don't reflect enough of what the party actually thinks. At least, that's the case for the PS and Les Verts. I saw the programs discussed, I know what the government consellors that will be in place if those parties succeed have in mind with some fair degree of precision, but the texts are much shorter than that. I'm not sure how to fix this (at this point).
People only talking about what others did wrong/ the "affaires"
There are two sides here. The first one is that I don't think that's totally true. That's pretty much all that there is on TV, but in other media there's more. The second one is that there's one candidate in the mix -- Chirac -- that has done a lot more "affaires" than all the others put together. So that justifies mentionning it imho.
People making vague promises that they will forget as soon as they'll be elected
I don't think that's totally fair. I won't hide the fact that I'm left-wing, and that while there are a few promises that I was counting on that didn't make it, I also saw quite a few that imho were held. Simply thinking of the 35 hour work week, the PACS (non-discriminating civil contract), the faultless divorce, the regularisation of "sans-papier" which while imho insufficient was already large, the reduction of unemployment; and more within our domains: the internetisation of administration (almost everything is accessible there now, and still progressing. The current plan being to create a "citizen's account" in which all administrative procedures will be grouped, with the possibility of following their progress and other such features), the fight against software patents, the internetisation of government (there was only one computer in Matignon in 1997, and it wasn't connected...), etc.
So, overall, I agree that it's imperfect but 1) there is campaign information available (though not yet enough and 2) some candidates are imho demonstrably better than others
;) Now as to why I'm excited, to begin with I do take the time to access some information on what's going on, and then I'm politicized enough that I find elections exciting no matter what. Finally, my cynical half wants blood and mud-slinging ;-) but that doesn't account for most of it honestly. It's precisely what I don't like...
arhuman on 2002-02-23T13:32:15
I hope you won't take it for a personnal attack, but what you say is a perfect illustration of what I dislike in politician politic:
The goal of the campaign is to win the elections, and then the politics happen (or not;-)
Sorry but no, Call me an idealist but I thought it should be a moment when everybody would present/share/compare his Ideas to make the things better.
Now every people involved in politic find it normal to see it ONLY as a race to win (Should I underline that the reach for power totally bypass the citizens interest).
The second one is that there's one candidate in the mix -- Chirac -- that has done a lot more "affaires" than all the others put together.
What amazed me most, is how clever people tend to loose all objectivity when the discussion comes to politic.
I'm neither for PS nor for RPR (nor for UM nor for any other party), but from my point of view every party has a skeleton in its closet:
All I want to say that no one is WORSE than the other, they're sadly all equally corrupted, in my humble opinion of course.
- Pasqua's name is mentionned in several current investigation.
- Le Pen was even condamned !
- PS is not untouched by the affaires(Roland Dumas, Mitterand wiretapping,Destrade's case...)
- The RPR is also hit by the Schuler's case among MANY others
- ...
I won't hide the fact that I'm left-wing, and that while there are a few promises that I was counting on that didn't make it, I also saw quite a few that imho were held. Simply thinking of the 35 hour work week,...
Yes few promises weren't held, but the most important to me:
- The retirement's financing (is the translation correct?) was totally AVOIDED
- The 35 hours !
Sorry but you should know that for small enterprise the 35hours can be legally 38h36 (It's the case in my company) with no other advantage...
Furthermore before talking about the 35 hours, I'd like to be allowed to do only 39 hours (or better get paid for the bonus hours...)- This year we'll be able for the first time to fill online the income tax form.
I'm sad to say that internetisation of the administration remain a buzz word for me.- Cryptography legalization.
I mean real Crypto, the 128bit limits forbiding some of the most useful...
Finally, my cynical half wants blood and mud-slinging;-)
Even if you're joking, some people are not...
So yes I'd like to talk about politic with any person whatever his "political color", in fact my dream program steal ideas from different party (green,PS,Bayrou,RPR...).
But no, I see no interest for me to take part to this campaign.
In fact all the problem is here : This campaign only goal is to increase the parties influence, not solve the citizens problems.
Re:It's precisely what I don't like...
pudge on 2002-02-23T14:00:19
The goal of the campaign is to win the elections, and then the politics happen (or not;-) Sorry but no, Call me an idealist but I thought it should be a moment when everybody would present/share/compare his Ideas to make the things better.
Well, autarch, this is one place where I absolutely agree with you. Democracy fails in the current American election system, because Democracy (in America) is supposed to be where the people decide how the country should be governed. And that is not what happens.
Only rich or powerful men can run successfully, the media tells us whom we should vote for with flawed polling numbers to convince us that their choice is a popular one, and the two policitcal parties collude with the media to restrict access to alternative candidates. A leader of the "nonpartisan" (i.e., "bipartisan") Commission for Presidential Debates -- run by a Democrat and a Republican -- said that third-party candidates shouldn't be involved in the debates because people might like them. "Our role is not to jump-start your campaign and all of a sudden make you competitive." No, your role is to help foster Democracy. Not to try to get your political candidate a victory.
George Stephanopolous gave proof of this collusion in the same piece, where he noted that in exchange for not allowing Perot in the debates (because Mr. Dole, who said the only poll that matters is the election, who was also telling the American people that Perot was not popular enough to be in the debates, didn't want Perot participating), the Clinton camp would be able to get anything they wanted: their own setting, moderator, time, length. The media could have demanded Perot's (or Nader's) involvement, demanded a better time frame (months instead of weeks before the election), etc., but chose not to. Why? At best it is because they think it is a better story. That's what CNN head election correspondent Jeff Greenfield says: more than two people isn't a good "story."
Well, some of us still care about fair exchange of ideas determining our nation's fate, and not what makes a good story, however "boring" it might be to Mr. Greenfield, and however much jeopardy it might put in the two major candidate's chances. Bah.
You want fair elections? We could start by having a little law that says any public debate in the primaries or the normal campaign will have to invite every candidate that is on enough ballots to win the election. For a local primary debate, such as one put on for people in Georgia, that would mean everyone on the ballot in Georgia for the Republican nomination. You want to nationally televise it? Well, count up all the possible delegates each candidate is capable of getting nationwide, and allow in at least that number which is capable of getting the requisite number of winning.
Is it abridgement of the right to free speech and free press? Perhaps. But those things were always intended to foster our system of government, and this is one clear example where they are used to damage it, hopefully not beyond disrepair.
Don't think that I believe the debates are the only problem we face in this regard; but it is the most obvious one that addresses the point about campaigns not being a free exchange of ideas.
Re:It's precisely what I don't like...
darobin on 2002-02-23T18:03:57
I don't know if that could help one way or another, but there's a law in France that guarantees that all candidates have equal access to televised speech. Such laws are hard to evaluate and put into practice, but overall I think it helps. Those rules are possible because the french legal system differentiates between free speech and free press, and puts the former above the latter. I'm not sure how that would map into the american approach to free speech, which is notoriously different.
There are also severe limitations on campaign financing (limitations that are still young though, and certainly could use some tuning).
PS: I don't know if it was a typo or a thinko, but it's not autarch talking there
;) Re:It's precisely what I don't like...
pudge on 2002-02-23T18:22:47
PS: I don't know if it was a typo or a thinko, but it's not autarch talking there;)
It was a read-o! Yow!Re:It's precisely what I don't like...
darobin on 2002-02-23T17:54:58
First and foremost, I don't take this as a personal attack. This is a discussion site, if I didn't want people to voice their opinions I'd turn comments off. I hope you don't take anything personally either.
Second, while I'm a member of the PS for pragmatic reasons (ie I want to be involved in politics, and it is the best option I could find after moving through a number of parties) I am clearly not representative of the main tendencies of the party -- I'm probably on the most leftist branch, and clearly avant-garde on a number of subjects. I will certainly not try to defend some PS positions or actions that I disagree with.
Now that those points are clear, call me a bastard if you wish but I stand by my opinion that the primary goal of a campaign is to win the elections. I do concur that more and better debate would make things more interesting, but you can have the best ideas in the world, if you don't get to have the power it's moot. Nice discussion, but mostly useless. That's why it's called a campaign and not a debate. Besides, I'd find it a bit silly to suddenly have debates because the elections are coming up. That's like throwing a party only when there's a national event (14th of July and the such). There are plenty of places in which the political debates can and in fact do take place. Open conferences, associations, think tanks, etc. All year round.
For the "affaires", I was talking about the candidates, not politicians as a whole. Quite obviously Pasqua most certainly beats anyone else in terms of illegality, politicians and mafiosi alike. I maintain that Chirac is by far more corrupt than all the others put together. I think that's not too hard to see.
Saying that no candidate is worse than the others is just silly. If you want a debate, it would probably be a good not to make broad sweeping assertions like that.
Re measures that didn't make it:
retirement (re)financing, yes indeed, that was one of those I had in mind in my previous comment.
35h: as the owner of a small company, I am well aware of the problems and pitfalls. We succesfully had our company running on 35h here before we were sent into turmoil by our former associate. The problems of companies with less than 20 employees (on average) are known and hard to fix (which is why the reform doesn't affect them very directly). I think it's a pity that the CJD (Cercle des Jeunes Entrepreneurs, mostly not politically aligned) didn't make its voice heard better as they had some good ideas in that area, and that instead the MEDEF, which is only representative of the largest companies, put forth it's bag of filthy ultraliberal ideas. Note also that working more than 39h is illegal unless you are a share-holding manager, or you have a contract that precompensates for overtime (as is often the case in scientific research). Also note that a large part of the population has already benefitted from it, and that in my opinion is already progress.
Online administration: I can tell you haven't looked at what is offered. Let me restate: most administrative tasks can be carried out at least in part online, and more is constantly in the works. I already filed my income tax online, so I know that it's already possible. It's also far from being the only thing that can be done on the many administrative sites. I'm personally presently working on the front of accessibility, which is imho still a major problem there.
Crypto: I agree that things could be better there. The problem is currently stuck in diplomacy, ie we are talking with our political partners abroad in order to have something coherent, and that is proving difficult. 9-11 hasn't made that much easier so far.
PS: hey look! It's the campaign and we're having a debate!
;-)
